ACCUSED MAN’S DILEMMA

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 116, 14 February 1928, Page 6

ACCUSED MAN’S DILEMMA

ATTEMPT TO PROTECT RELATIVE EVIDENCE GIVEN UNDER PERSUASION BY Telegraph.—Press association. Wanganui, February 13. An interesting turn took place in a case before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., today, when Thomas William Cuthbertson was charged with theft of a turkey, shot on the farm of Hugh Hamilton, I’arahauhau. Counsel for defendant submitted that, if the turkeys were wild and wandered all over the place, there was no more ownership in these turkeys than in wild pigs or cattle. The most defendant could be guilty of was trespass. No settler could prove that the turkeys were his except those he had specially marked. The senior-sergeant said the matter had already been established in the Supreme Court in Wanganui on two occasions. Counsel said that defendant had been rather foolish because he had made a statement to protect another relative, a lad from Auckland. Cuthbertson told the boy to take a shot gun and see whether he could get a hare on Hamilton’s property. He heard the shot, and on going through the fence saw the lad knocking a turkey on the head. He told the boy to go for his life, and the boy did, and he was picked up later on the return journey. Defendant corroborated this statement and said the boy was his nephew, aged about 17. The senior-sergeant: What is this boy’s name? Witness: I don’t like to divulge his name. The Magistrate: But you must. Witness: Must I give it? I am not prepared to give it. I have sworn that I won’t divulge his name. The Magistrate: You have sworn to tell the truth and the whole truth. Just take it quietly. My course is perfectly clear. If you refuse to answer you will be remanded in custody until Wednesday. If you refuse to answer then you will be brought up again and remanded again until you signify that you are willing to answer the necessary questions. The serrior-sergeant: I want the boy’s name and address. I may say that it is intended to interview him and your statement will be put to him. I want you to understand that. The Magistrate: Put the question to him, sergeant.

The senior-sergeant: I want the lad’s full name, and if the statements you now make are not true yoii will place yourself more seriously in the hands of the Court for perjury. I don’t mind if you desire to consult your solicitor.

Defendant availed himself of this privilege, and after a short interview defendant- gave the name of the lad as Ronald Towers, of Ponsonby, Auckland. Witness still adhered to his statement that the youth had a gun. Graham Docket said that a youth went behind the hedge with a gun, and later Cuthbertson had shot at a hare with a rifle.

Senior-Sergeant Lopdell suggested that decision might be reserved in the meantime until inquiries had cleared the matter up. The Alagistrate said that he was inclined to think that now they had the correct story of the affair before the Court, and that disposed of the charge of theft. Counsel said that he had had considerable difficulty to persuade Cuthbertson to disclose the name of the lad. He had no objection to waiting until the police had concluded their inquiries. The Magistrate then reserved his decision.